* Notes from a study I did on the "stoning of the rebellious son."
The Penalty
for Rebellious Children
1.
Texts: Exodus 21.15, 17; Leviticus 20.9;
Deuteronomy 21.18-21
2.
Why this topic?
a.
Understand a piece of God’s law in its original
setting—understand God’s Word.
b.
Apologetic issue—it is common to disparage this
law as cruel and unbecoming of a good God
“The idea that the Bible is a
perfect guide to morality is simply astounding, given the contents of the
book. Admittedly, God’s counsel to
parents is straightforward: whenever children get out of line, we should beat
them with a rod (Proverbs 13:24, 20:30, and 23:13-14). If
they are shameless enough to talk back to us, we should kill them (Exodus
21:15, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Mark 7:9-13, and Matthew 15:4-7).”--Sam Harris[1]
c.
Exhortation to us today—shows the seriousness of
sin and the call to holiness.
d.
Look at potential applications to our modern
culture.
3.
Some details of the commandments:
a.
Exodus 21.15—physical assault upon one’s mother
or father
i. No
age is given for the offender—why do people assume an 8 to 12 year old?
ii. Implication
of the commandment—one is able to assault parents and get away with it.
·
Otherwise the penalty would be the rod of
discipline used by parents (Proverbs 23.13-14)
b.
Exodus 21.17 and Leviticus 20.9—cursing one’s
father or mother
i. “’To
curse’ means more than uttering the occasional angry word. 2 Sam. 16:5ff; Job 3:1ff. give some
idea of the venom and bitter feelings that cursing could entail.”[2]
ii. It
has been suggested that the nature of this cursing “means something like
‘repudiation,’ and may not involve a spoken ‘curse’ at all.”[3]
iii. In
reference to the phrase, “his blood guiltiness is upon him”:
* “The phrase occurs only in Ezek.
18:13; 33:5 and in this chapter as a coda to several of the laws (vv. 11, 12,
12, 16, 27), apparently in justification of the death penalty in these
cases. It seems to be equivalent
to the commoner phrase ‘his blood shall be on his head’ (e.g., Josh. 2:19; 2
Sam. 1:16). If a man breaks such a law, he does so knowing the consequences, and
therefore cannot object to the penalty imposed.”[4]
c.
Deuteronomy 21.18-21—stubborn and rebellious son[5]
i. “Stubborn
and rebellious son” (v. 18)—what does this refer to?
“[T]he kind of behavior that is envisaged in this legislation would be of
a very serious nature; whatever the explicit form of that behavior, its
implicit threat would be against the security and continuity of the covenant
community of God. As such, it was
to be dealt with firmly and severely.”[6]
ii. “when
they chastise him, he will not even listen to them”
1.
This is habitual disobedience.
2.
This is disobedience beyond the cure of family
exhortation and discipline (Proverbs 1.8-9; 23.13-14).
“The procedure for dealing with
the rebellious son (Deut. 21:18021) explicitly presupposes that internal family
action has been taken. Only
because this has failed does the problem then become a matter for public
concern and action.”[7]
iii. “he
is a glutton and a drunkard”
1.
“The latter words [glutton and drunkard] do not
specify the crime, but indicate, by way of example, the kind of life that has
resulted from disobedience to parental authority. The crime, in other words, is disobedience, but the result
of the crime is the dissolution of a proper style of life.[8]
2.
This also shows us something of the age of the
son under consideration. Ten year-old
sons are not normally characterized by drunkenness as a by-product of their
sinning against mom and dad.
iv. “bring
him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.
1.
“Both the father and mother were to take the boy
to the elders, whose duty it was to deal with offences against the social order
and family rights (19:12). The
elders assembled at the city gate, the usual place for the administration of
law (22:15; 25:7; Ru 4:1, 2, 11; Jb 31:21; Ps 127:5; Is. 29:21; Am 5.10, 12,
15). It is of interest that both
parents were required to act in agreement in such a drastic move, which could
easily end in the boy’s death. But
the judicial decision was one for the elders, since the offence was more than a
family concern. It was a community
offence.”[9]
2.
There are judicial limits on the parents’ rights
over children. There is no right
to take the child’s life. (Closely
linked with next point…)
v. “all
the men of his city shall stone him to death”
1.
“If the elders found the man guilty, the
sentence was death by stoning. The
parents were not required to participate, perhaps out of a sense of delicacy,
although more likely in order to stress the point that the power of life and
death over their children was not theirs.”[10]
2.
“Here the allocation of responsibility within
the community is made clear. The
parents had a responsibility to prosecute their son for the offense in
question; they could not take the law into their own hands, however. Judgment would then be carried out by
the men of the city.”[11]
3.
“In this context Deut. 21:18-21, concerning the
rebellious son, has been seen as setting a legal limit on the exercise of
paternal power by placing the power of execution of a son in the hands of a
court of elders and no longer in the hands of the father—that is, bringing into
the realm of civil jurisdiction what may have originally been exclusively a
matter of family law.”[12]
4.
The covenantal context of commandment—there may
be some unique elements given Israel’s covenantal status as God’s people in the
Old Testament.
a.
“In addition, because parents had a key
responsibility for teaching their children about God and His law (Deuteronomy
6:6-9), the parents represent the primary channel through which knowledge of
and conformity to the divine order is passed on and preserved for the next
generation. An attack on the
authority of parents is most grievous because it threatens the most precious
heritage of Israel, its knowledge of God, and thereby also threatens possession
of the blessings flowing from this knowledge (‘that you may live long in the
land the Lord your God is giving you,’ Exodus 20:12b).”[13]
b.
“In this light, the various laws which prescribe
the death penalty for any form of open disrespect for parental authority can be
seen in a new and more positive perspective. They are not relics of a harsh patria potestas or an arbitrary, authoritarian patriarchy. They are in fact safeguards of the national well-being. For violation of parental
authority—rejection of the domestic jurisdiction of the head of the
household—was a crime against the stability of the nation inasmuch as it was an
attack upon that on which the nation’s relationship with God was founded—the
household. It was thus as justly
liable to the sanction of capital punishment as the more blatant forms of
apostasy or idolatry. The
treatment of the rebellious son in Deut. 21:18-21 shows most clearly how
seriously this was taken. If the
circumstances were sufficiently grave, the stability and well-being of the household were to be reckoned of greater
importance than the life of one of its members. The national
significance of the situation is reflected in the phrase ‘all Israel will hear
of it and be afraid’ (v. 21).”[14]
5.
The commandment as criminal deterrent and
protection
a.
“The purpose of the law is to eliminate entirely
a criminal element from the nation, a professional criminal class.”[15]
b.
“By law, certain acts are abolished, and the
persons committing those acts either executed or brought into conformity to
law. The law thus protects a certain class, the
law-abiding, and every law-order is in effect a subsidy to the people of the
law. If the law fails to enforce
that protection, it destroys itself in time. The failure of the law to execute the incorrigible and
professional criminal is creating a major social crisis and leading
increasingly to anarchy.”[16]
6.
Death penalty as a maximum sentence with
potentially other lesser penalties acceptable
a.
Based on the wording of Numbers 35.31, Walter
Kaiser and others have argued that the majority of the death penalty offences
in the Mosaic law were seen as the maximum allowable punishment. Other forms of compensation could be
offered to cover the offence.
i. The
only capital offence that could not receive a reduced sentence was premeditated
murder: Numbers 35.31.
ii. “It
seems most likely that everyone of these cases [death penalty offences] could
have a substitute penalty except that of premeditated murder. Composition (sic—compensation) was
explicitly prohibited in the case of murder (Num. 35:31). Since this crime was singled out and
this prohibition was sternly attached to it, we may assume that in all other
capital cases, given the proper conditions, some substitution for one’s own
life was possible.”[17]
iii. “In
biblical law, the option of ransom in lieu of execution is sometimes explicit
(Exod 21:29-30; 1 Kgs 20:39), and arguably is was an option unless explicitly
disallowed (Num 35:31).”[18]
7.
The commandment in the New Testament
a.
Matthew 15.1-9 (esp. v. 4); Mark 7.5-13 (esp. v.
10)
b.
Matthew 11.19—Jesus is accused of being a
glutton and drunkard (cf. Deuteronomy 21.20)
8.
Application of the commandment
a.
Historical application
i. “An
Abstract of the Laws of New England, As They Are Now Established” by John
Cotton (1641)
ii. “Rebellious
children, whether they continue in riot or drunkenness after due correction
from their parents, or whether curse or smite their parents, to be put to
death. Ex. 21:15, 17. Lev. 20:9.”
Chapter VII, Section 16
b.
Contemporary application
i. In
2004…[19]
1.
38 states allowed for death penalty
2.
21 of these states allowed for execution of
criminals who were 16 years old at the time of their crime (AZ was included)
3.
14 was the youngest age where a defendant could
face the death penalty in Arkansas, Utah, and Virginia
ii. In
2005, the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons struck down the death penalty for
juveniles. 22 defendants had been executed for crimes committed as juveniles
since 1976.[20]
iii. Contemporary
examples of “rebellious sons”
1.
Samuel Rudolf Rotondo[21]
·
December 15, 1998: killed an 11-year old girl
and injured a 33-year old woman—Rotondo was 26 at time.
·
Drinking alcohol: 11
·
Smoking marijuana: 12
·
Methamphetamines: 15
·
3 stays in prison: violated terms of parole each
time after release
2.
William Benton Jr[22]
·
Age: 24
·
Attacked mother by throwing rock at windshield
of her car
·
Upset over drugs
3.
Ryan Heisler[23]
·
Age: 20
·
Killed Glendale police officer Bradley Jones
i. Went
through officer’s pockets for key
ii. Stole
patrol car
·
18: arrested for breaking and entering and theft
i. 6
months in jail
ii. 3
years intensive probation
·
Day he got of jail—assaulted a Mesa woman
i. 6
months jail
ii. Continued
3 years probation
4.
Consider the issue of contemporary gangs—a
professional criminal element.
5.
God’s law is gracious. It provides the mechanism for ridding a community of a
criminal element
·
When the criminal element is not taken care of
then other people are hurt and die.
[5]
John Durham mentions the work of H. C. Brichto (The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. JBLMS 13. Philadelphia:
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1963, p. 134, n. 41) who speculates
that the Deuteronomic law dealing with rebellious and contentious sons who must
be stoned to death is “an expansion” of the “terse statement of Exodus
21:17.” Durham, Exodus (WBC), 323.
[20]
Death Penalty Information Center—Fact
Sheet (October 15, 2015).
Available online: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf.
